2016 (1) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relating to service tax on mobilisation advance and on account of denial of composition scheme, the appeal is allowed by way of remand for de novo adjudication and re- computation of demand on the basis of the principles laid down. Before de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority shall give an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. Needless to say that the penalties will have to be re-adjusted in accordance with the demand so recomputed.
G RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND R K SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr N Venkatraman, Sr. Adv., Mr S Ramakrishna & Ms Amoha, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Amresh Jain, DR ORDER PER: R K SINGH: Stay application along with appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No.52/GB/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder indivisible works contract executed prior to 01.06.2007. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.6770/2004 in the case of CCE, Kerala & Others Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Others holding that works contracts were not liable to service tax prior to 01.06.2007, the demand pertaining to DMRC IT Park is also not sustainable. 6. As regards demand pertaining to mobilisation advance, the appellant has contended that mobilisation advance was received to enable it to procure the wherewithal to render the service and this was adjusted towards payments for service rendered and service tax was paid whenever the mobilisation was so adjusted towards payment of service rendered. However, it is seen that the mobilisation of advanc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he component of the demand arising on account of denying composition scheme for paying service tax under works contract service, we agree with the contention of the appellant that in respect of on-going composite contracts, where the service tax was paid prior to 01.06.2007 availing of abatement scheme and with effect from 01.06.2007 by opting for compositional scheme, the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Govt of India (supra) would not be of any consequence as no service tax was payable before 01.06.2007 on such contracts in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Others (supra) and therefore in respect of such contracts also if the option for compositio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X